If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Chomsky is a strange bird. On the control of the press, on almost any/every US attack on other nations by any means, on civil rights, on the oligarchy sucking up all the power and money in society and the world, on militarism and burgeoning police state and so much more he is on the mark......BUT....when it comes to false-flag operations such as Dallas or 911 he fails totally. I know many think he is some kind National Security agent and I wouldn't vigorously try to convince someone he was not; however, I get the feeling there is something else going on. I listened recently to Chomsky have a discussion with Belafonte - and of the things they spoke about [important things one would have to categorize as a radical view on society] they agreed. They avoided those things Chomsky won't touch in a progressive manner. I personally can not explain why Chomsky acts as he does with the most important covert ops / false-flag ops. Personally, I find it hard to believe he'd be allowed to be so radical and critical on everything else as long as he led the public and progressives astray on those other few issues. It is possible, and I don't dismiss it as a possibility, but I find it unlikely. I think something strange is going on in his thinking process that simply doesn't allow him to imagine such complex false-flag events. Maybe he will yet change his mind on these matters or we may someday learn what is behind this apparent dichotomy. Yes, Amy Goodman is analogous. She too is generally progressive, but won't touch Dallas, the other major political assassinations, nor 911 in any meaningful way.

The explanation, as jaded as it might seem, is that he is a "lifetime actor." He's there to set the extreme condition where the "left" must not tread. 'If Chomsky says it, it must be true.'

Lifetime actors can arrive at their positions via the carrot and/or the stick. He's doing what he is supposed to do. And yes, Amy Goodman is one imo. Any prominent person who influences range of thought and emotion will receive The Visit. I suspect there are many such persons.

"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I

Chomsky is a strange bird. On the control of the press, on almost any/every US attack on other nations by any means, on civil rights, on the oligarchy sucking up all the power and money in society and the world, on militarism and burgeoning police state and so much more he is on the mark......BUT....when it comes to false-flag operations such as Dallas or 911 he fails totally. I know many think he is some kind National Security agent and I wouldn't vigorously try to convince someone he was not; however, I get the feeling there is something else going on. I listened recently to Chomsky have a discussion with Belafonte - and of the things they spoke about [important things one would have to categorize as a radical view on society] they agreed. They avoided those things Chomsky won't touch in a progressive manner. I personally can not explain why Chomsky acts as he does with the most important covert ops / false-flag ops. Personally, I find it hard to believe he'd be allowed to be so radical and critical on everything else as long as he led the public and progressives astray on those other few issues. It is possible, and I don't dismiss it as a possibility, but I find it unlikely. I think something strange is going on in his thinking process that simply doesn't allow him to imagine such complex false-flag events. Maybe he will yet change his mind on these matters or we may someday learn what is behind this apparent dichotomy. Yes, Amy Goodman is analogous. She too is generally progressive, but won't touch Dallas, the other major political assassinations, nor 911 in any meaningful way.

The explanation, as jaded as it might seem, is that he is a "lifetime actor." He's there to set the extreme condition where the "left" must not tread. 'If Chomsky says it, it must be true.'

Lifetime actors can arrive at their positions via the carrot and/or the stick. He's doing what he is supposed to do. And yes, Amy Goodman is one imo. Any prominent person who influences range of thought and emotion will receive The Visit. I suspect there are many such persons.

Again, I'm not going to argue - only state that this view of yours and others may be going a bit too far. I have relatives, not in visible national positions I grant, who are progressive but think I'm nuts when I speak about Dallas or 911. Something in their psychological make-up just won't let them go there without any 'visit'. I guess you'd posit that Chomsky and Goodman showed them where to go and no further (rather than listen to their kin; i.e. me) - and that is one possibility. Another is that Chomsky and others also just can't go there without external coercion or 'visit'. Goodman I think was afraid of loosing her sponsorship if she went over the line. Chomsky has had no sponsorship and has lived off of his salary as a professor and his many books. Others like 'Mack' I think on can make a much stronger case for having been led into the darkness. Anyway, I think there is little evidence at this point on these two in order to decide and one has to just make a call until there is..... The key to my scepticism is where the line is drawn. If it was an attempt to keep progressives or even liberals from not going too far into conspiracies and dirty deeds in the back rooms of society, I'd think they'd move the line much further toward the 'right'....again just my sense on this when one doesn't have evidence. I do admit that some [Mack, Posner, Russo and many others I can name] show more evidence of having been pushed, pulled, sucked into being gatekeepers. I just think one needs evidence before one makes 'the claim'. I don't think my relatives have been visited - they just are following a certain mindthink in the society - and yes, it is in part - in large part - constructed by those behind the curtains. Some of it is a natural human fear of the implications 'if all that you say is true'..... Time will tell on Chomsky and Goodman. I am equally disappointed in Chomsky and Goodman - and condemn them for what they do not cover, having the platform to do so. I guess the difference is whether or not the 'rest' they talk about/write about needs to be ignored because of what they refuse to talk about. I think I can see far beyond where they stop, and hope others with my views will develop a public voice/platform and influence others to see beyond, as well.......

Last edited by Peter Lemkin; 08-03-2018 at 05:26 AM.

“If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” - Frederick Douglass"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild

"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn

JFK, 9-11 And Conspiracy Theory

Having only been in the conspiracy theory arena for 4 1/2 years, what amazes me most at this point is the mental attitude of veteran "conspiracy theorists". Apparently, many don't "have their hands around" the magnitude or nature of the current problem (IMHO).

1. There has been a recent change in the definition of truth: it is now defined as either (a) what most people believe or (b) an internal mental image of the actual surrounding environment. (To me, only the second should qualify).

2. If you look up the definition of "propaganda", the definition does not require something to be false or misleading (any more) in order to be propaganda. Officially, propaganda does not have to be false or misleading but rather is something that promotes a cause. (That is B.S. in my opinion, and not what I have always been taught).

3. In the realm of psychiatry, if you thing that space aliens have poisoned your root beer, that would be called a paranoid delusion by a psychiatrist. But if you convince everybody in your neighborhood that space aliens have poisoned your root beer, then it is no longer a paranoid delusion (and you therefore have been "cured"). This is even more B.S.
If enough people have the same paranoid delusion, it is no longer such. This is obviously a ridiculous situation.

Back in the 1970's, Yuri Andropov of the Soviet Union decided to begin using (heavily) the mental health system to imprison the political dissidents in the USSR. But when psychiatrists from the US went over to Russia and met in conferences with Russian psychiatrists, they came away in perfect agreement with their Russian colleagues. They agreed that, in Russia, that a person who actively opposed the regime was indeed insane. In other words, the psychiatrists (IMHO) "go along, just to get along" and never rock the boat. Just like the judges in South Africa and Nazi Germany were no help in opposing racist irrational hysteria and even mass genocide.

So if our psychiatric profession or Federal Courts are actively involved in hiding the JFK papers and denouncing "conspiracy theorists" or are fueling the fires of "Trump derangement syndrome", then very, very, very few people will be able to keep their heads on straight. (And that was, for instance, the world of Nazi Germany in 1933-1945).

Our brains are hard-wired to struggle with issues like "conspiracy theory." The most primitive example is what psychologists call the "latency period" which lasts from birth up until puberty. If you are six years old and a girl walks by wearing "falsies" (a 1950s term), you probably won't notice. But if you have those pubescent hormones in your system and are 16, you might well notice. So NOT SEEING CERTAIN THINGS is apparently hard-wired into our brains.

After reading (now) nearly 200 books on JFK and the period of 1933 to 1963, the problem no longer seems to me to involve "who killed JFK." I think that there is a developing consensus about that, found in The Skorzeny Papers, The Three Barons, General Walker" by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield and other similar sources.

The more perplexing problem is the one discussed above---(why do brilliant people like Chomsky have their head someplace REAL DARK about 9-11 and 11-22-63?)

The first thing you learn about communications is that their is both (1) a transmitter and (2) a receiver. The problem is not only with what Chomsky is "transmitting"---Christ often used the phrase "for those who have ears to hear..."

My wife warned me that since I published an expose on the JFK assassination, I would get myself on "somebody's list" somewhere. As of yet, I have not had any threats or anything, even after selling books in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Germany, India and many other countries. So I'm not sure that it's the Deep State that is menacing famous people to keep their mouth shut about JFK and about 9-11.

I think the real problem and limiting factor is the failure of the JFK assassination press (and also academia) to have the tools to understand the massive "brain fart" that is happening throughout the US and maybe elsewhere. As mentioned above, I personally believe the the teachings of Christ gave people to tools to understand their environment and to recognize order within the chaos in their time. "I once was lost, but now I'm found, was blind, but now I see" to quote the hymn.

I guess we are temporarily like those unfortunate souls who endured Hitler and the Nazis. We will just have to weather the storm and wait for a "bailout" from some source or another. Maybe a new school of philosophy or maybe an new variant on religion. Aside from that, it's every man for himself, every brain for itself (during this disturbing time period in which we are in).

Getting back to Plaza Man, I really like what Frank did near the end of his review.

He contrasted what was shown in the film, with the frivolity of our comic book culture to show the terrible dissonance and disconnect.

And I liked the ending, where he brings up what Garrison said near the end of the Playboy interview. How he predicted that America was in danger of becoming a proto fascist state. Remember, he said this before the murders of King and RFK. But he qualified it by saying it would not be like the World War Ii fascism of Germany and Italy; either in its cause or impact. (Which Frank equated to the fine book by Bertram Gross Friendly Fascism. )

The DA continued with what he called the real test : What happens to the person who dissents? As he did, as did Oliver Stone, as does Groden.

Modern America does not just off you as Mussolini or Hitler did. Not friendly enough. They marginalize you, they ridicule you, they harass you, intimidate you, smear you--until you are pretty much discounted. This works even better.

It says "Plaza Man", when I first read it, I thought it said, "Pizza Man" lol....

Bob, making his deliveries? Lol...

Yes, Scott....... Old Man Groden delivers a new 'plaza pizza' all the time. Why, he even customizes the delivery, just for you !!!! I hear he needs a sponge bath, uh.........

Hey, that's on you! I mean if you feel as though you need to picture an old man needing a sponge bath, not sure where you came up with that one, but I get you have your fetishes, I'm sure it's an image you think about often, an old man bathing nude. I think you need a psychiatrist!

She also would not have me on. When Jeremy Scahill worked for her, he came up to me at a speaking engagement she was doing for KPFK in Long Beach. (Since I was on the board I had to go. Would never have gone on my own.)

Anyway, he came up to me and asked me if I had co written the volume The Assassinations. I said yes I had. He told me how much he liked it. He also told me to send him a copy of the book so he could pitch it to Goodman, and he gave me his office address in NYC.

Amy Goodman and Democracy Now seem to get lots of funding from various bigwig foundations - the Ford Foundation, the Park Foundation, the Threshold Foundation, the Tides Foundation and the Lannan Foundation. That's from a long list on Joel Van Der Reijden's ISGP page with a bunch of links and dry paragraphs of various funding totals attached. Given all that, I'd have to wonder if Goodman could cross the road without checking with her funders first.

Joel has also posted a PDF of an article by Bob Feldman from the Critical Sociology journal, Report from the Field: Left Media and Left Think Tanks - Foundation-Managed Protest? The PDF is from a big paperback volume so the excerpt runs from page 427 to page 446. Scroll down to page 440 and you get a list of various folk that have given Democracy Now some cash.

I've never heard of most of those outfits, but elsewhere online I'm reading "According to the Lannan Foundation's Form 990 financial filing for 2008, Amy Goodman's Democracy Now Productions was given three grants, totalling $375,000, by the Lannan Foundation." Three years after that, here's John Pilger doing a piece for the New Statesman, noting how the Lannan Foundation ran around trying to bury his antiwar film THE WAR YOU DON'T SEE, and cancelled an appearance by Pilger.

..and the thread reprints a funny letter Pilger wrote to Noam Chomsky. This cracked me up -

I urge you to visit the Lannan website www.lannan.org Good people like Michael Ratner, Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald are shown in participants in discussion about freedom of speech. I am there, too, but my name is the only one with a line through it and the word, 'Cancelled'.

So with all that said I'm not surprised Goodman is useless on some of the bigger issues.